Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the dual behavior of scoring and rewriting, which adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not clarify whether the original note is modified or a new version is returned, and it doesn't explain how the score is delivered. Given the annotations already indicate read-only behavior, the description should clarify the output format but remains ambiguous on this point.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action ('Scores') and efficiently conveys the full behavior. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. The description says it 'scores' and 'rewrites', but it doesn't explicitly state whether the return value is the rewritten note, a score, or both. This ambiguity leaves the agent uncertain about the expected output, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides context that the 'note' is a CRM note written after a sales call or text thread, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't specify the expected structure, length, or what constitutes a 'complete note', leaving some semantic gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: it scores a CRM note and rewrites it with brackets for missing facts. The verb+resource is specific, and the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_note_checklist, which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the context 'after a sales call or text thread' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.